Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for May 16th, 2013

Join or Start a Conversation on Family Court Matters. Jump in Somewhere!

with 6 comments

[Looks like this one started around May 16, 2013; it was then left “pending” for a long while, and now being re-published along with original comments on November 16, 2013 (after some days of adding too much, then splitting off the added insight from later months after all). I apologize for the inconvenience and for not having figured out what the Contact Form was earlier in the blog!

Believe it or not, I do want feedback.  Comments have always been open, and some of my ongoing network comes from people who commented; we are continuing to compare practices across jurisdictions and problemsolve, support, etc.  

The “contact” form here raises general topics and asks for feedback for any post (or link) on the entire blog. Don’t miss the “drop-down” menu on one of the fields below.  I have participated in “forums” before, but they are time-intensive and not usually set up for problem-solving.  I’m looking for people who perceive issues, can state them, and want to do something about it.  

Usually this is people who are already stuck in, or have been devastated by (current or past) the courts.  Of those people, who else is ready to frame the discussion and can actually handle the existence and relevance of the material I blog?

If disagree — what’s the basis?  If agree…..

I’m looking for better ways to organize and communicate the material, as well as better understanding of what does, or doesn’t communicate to people IN custody situations.   I have a lot of personal feedback through networking, and from some people who took time to comment and I can tell from other groups who formerly resisted talking about some of these essentials who now, have had to — because their followers also read this blog. Word is getting out.

I can show which direction human beings are driving this entire system (the Titanic ship of state, including the courts) based in a common language of economics and evolving corporate structures. Whether or not that’s a good or desired direction, matters.   Wouldn’t this knowledge be helpful for whether to start “fixing the broken courts” (tinkering with their settings) or dismantling them for other, different options?

In 2016 this blog (and my life) are at different states of awareness, and urgency. A significant 2016 insert follows because I’m going to either make this post “sticky” or re-post it, showing that three years ago, I was responding to the symptoms of what can now be better documented and defined — in part because I found documentation in the course of continuing to read, and in part because in the past three years, the means to continue changing the public perception of what “Paradigms” ought to reflect government itself, continue their expansive momentum, and showing more of their true character.


But First, As usual, “In My Opinion.”   Please argue it if you disagree, or state your own elsewhere, including in the contact form!  Bulleted commentary on, essentially, the conference circuit and its publications, may be helpful insight.

In my opinion, some of those who set this up maybe foresaw this day and have carved out other professional niches involving fewer judges, called “collaborative Justice.”

In other words, perhaps planning was made for the eventuality that the public catches on…. and shuts it down by simply refusing to feed the system, particularly as more of (us) start exposing how the system is actually fed, the funding… Read the rest of this entry »

Private Equity Winds Changing their Tack? Private Equity = Government Policy, … (Errata)

leave a comment »

If you just got this post by Twitter or as a wordpress follower, know it wasn’t fully-cooked yet. I was in the process of separating one long into two shorter posts — Looks like “Save Draft” was NOT pressed and “Publish” was.

Some of my published posts my also look half-baked (or too “runny”) but I have a little pride left — and that one was definitely not ready for public. So expect a better version. I’ll change the title some.

I don’t believe I’d even made the main point yet!……

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 16, 2013 at 3:27 pm

Private Equity Winds Changing their Tack? Private Equity = Government Policy, so Pay Attention!

leave a comment »

Unless a lifetime of welfare, begging, or fighting in the courts sounds like fun, I suggest people learn to get a grip (understand), if not from me, from someone better equipped to relate this — about which way the winds are blowing, which is to say, which way the money (income-producing assets, aka “wealth”) is flowing.

We ought to have a post — or a page at a minimum — on the Carlyle Group (a very interesting history), at a minimum at least 150 years of recent history spanning two or three continents (like: United States, Europe (London, Germany, the Netherlands, etc. — and Africa). I got a start on another blog over at:



I figure there are different approaches:

Passive — let someone else deal with it, and think about it, and go back to work (thereby contributing to the problem — by contributing to the investment platform which, given a little attention, it’s pretty obvious workers are doing. Which sheds a different understanding on the whole concept of the income tax, the Social Security Act, (social services per se) and a lot more.

Active — jump in, and by doing also get the understanding, and at least improve your personal situation. This should also free up some time for more political activity, which is definitely needed.

ANYHOW — here’s a Pension and Investments on-line that as of 12/27/2010 is reporting on the largest FOUNDATIONS based on their pension holdings, for the year 2009.

What amazes me is that, having done so many lookups, so very many of them have been dumping money into the courts, and promoting marriage and fatherhood, not to mention adoption incentives. I don’t see that any of them are particularly feminist or concerned about violence towards mothers AFTER they separate from abusive fathers…. Here’s that list.

I’m going to talk about #17 in this post. I brought up #5 in a post yesterday (CDRC post) and FYI, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Kellog, John d and Catherine T. MacAthur, Lilly (of course0, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Charles Stewart Mott, Cargill (although I forget for what) and others HAVE come up when it comes to family court matters. As has The Tulsa Initiative.

My first indicator was learning that MDRC (formerly Manpower Development Research Corporation), on which Ron Haskins, Isabella Sawhill and some others sit as board members — was formed in 1974 as a cooperative effort between FEDERAL government and PRIVATE agencies. I started reporting on it (particularly its piechart page showing funding) and “outing’ the multiple fatherhood demonstration projects written up in glowing terms (Parents Fair Share) which – from other web sources — were rife with overbilling, and subjected to audits. These foundations are all over the map (geographically) and “like white on rice’ when it comes to matters of controlling individual families’ relationships with their own (or so they thought!) kids!

So, at least read the list, OK?
From:

Pensions&Investments

(Pionline.com article dated 12/27/2010. Merry Christmas)

Largest foundations
Ranked by total assets, in U.S. billions, as of Dec. 31, 2009, unless otherwise noted.

Rank Foundation  Assets ($Billions)
1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation $33.91
2 Ford Foundation1 $10.37
3 J. Paul Getty Trust2 $9.34
4 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation $8.49
5 The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation $6.87
6 W. K. Kellogg Foundation3 $6.81
7 The David and Lucile Packard Foundation $5.70
8 The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation $5.24
9 Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation $5.20
10 Lilly Endowment Inc. $5.15
11 The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation $5.05
12 Tulsa Community Foundation4 $3.80
13 The Rockefeller Foundation $3.32
14 The Kresge Foundation $3.13
15 The California Endowment5 $3.08
16 The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust6 $2.67
17 The Annie E. Casey Foundation $2.64
18 The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation4 $2.52
19 The Duke Endowment $2.48
20 Carnegie Corporation of New York1 $2.43
21 Robert W. Woodruff Foundation, Inc. $2.40
22 Margaret A. Cargill Foundation4 $2.12
23 Charles Stewart Mott Foundation $2.08
24 John S. and James L. Knight Foundation $2.08
25 Conrad N. Hilton Foundation $1.98
26 Walton Family Foundation, Inc.4 $1.95
27 Open Society Institute4 $1.93
28 The Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Foundation, Inc.5 $1.77
29 Casey Family Programs4 $1.76
30 Silicon Valley Community Foundation $1.75
31 The New York Community Trust $1.74
32 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation $1.62
33 Kimbell Art Foundation4 $1.61
34 The Annenberg Foundation2 $1.60
35 The Cleveland Foundation4 $1.60
36 The McKnight Foundation4 $1.58
37 The Bloomberg Family Foundation, Inc.4 $1.57
38 Richard King Mellon Foundation4 $1.53
39 Doris Duke Charitable Foundation $1.53
40 The Chicago Community Trust1 $1.50
41 Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation4 $1.49
42 The James Irvine Foundation $1.45
43 Houston Endowment Inc. $1.43
44 The Simons Foundation2 $1.41
45 The Heinz Endowments $1.37
46 Eli & Edythe Broad Foundation4 $1.35
47 The Wallace Foundation $1.28
48 The Starr Foundation4 $1.20
49 Daniels Fund $1.13
50 California Community Foundation7 $1.12

Notes: 1: Data are as of Sept. 30, 2009. 2: Data are as of June 30, 2009. 3: Data are as of Aug. 31, 2009. 4: Data are as of Dec. 31, 2008. 5: Data are as of Feb. 28, 2009. 6: Data are as of March 31, 2009. 7: Data are as of June 30, 2010. Source: The Foundation Center


Through collective government investments from all individual governments across the United States, the government owns most of the major corporations in America, and beyond.

I’ll say it again, in a different way. Collectively, through investment, the United States government owns most major corporations and just about everything else in America.

It really boils down to economics, which are of course connected as well. So, like it or not, we ALL have to understand more than we do, and quit speaking into the air, without understanding what the walls of the room resonate to. As it turns out, a whole lot of private funding drives public policy that builds the rooms we are shouting about court corruption (etc.) in.

Look at a recent Wall Street Journal on how Private Equity Buyout Firms are now Building — Dams — instead:

Private Equity Firms Build Instead of Buy”

(the title is also a link to the article)
May 14, 2013, Wall Street Journal, in “Markets.” See photo:

The private-equity firm Blackstone, branching out from corporate takeovers, built a hydropower dam, above, on the White Nile in Uganda.

BUJAGALI, Uganda—A new dam at the headwaters of the White Nile, nearly 20 years in the making, generates almost half of this East African country’s electricity.

Its owner isn’t a state utility or an energy giant. It is Blackstone Group LP, best known for corporate takeovers.

The private-equity firm built the dam with partners and has a contract with energy-hungry Uganda to sell it power at rates that ensure profits for Blackstone for years to come.

The project, fraught with holdups that included a pirate hijacking and rituals to appease spirits before flooding an island, has little in common with the debt-fueled billion-dollar buyouts Blackstone helped popularize.

But the firm and its rivals increasingly are moving beyond the buyout playbook in search of other, sometimes unfamiliar sources of profit: drilling for oil in Oklahoma, building tract homes in North Dakota or shipping gasoline on the high seas.

What does private equity have to do with family courts, child protection, or anything else?
Well, guess where I heard about Blackstone (let alone Carlyle, another formerly Private Equity firm)?

Annie E. Casey Foundation. Here’s a fancy (visually clear, graphics, color, well-designed) January 2012 publication (just found) on an “AECF.org” (Annie E. Casey Foundation) website. It’s called “Skin In The Game” regarding Arizonans and put out by Children’s Advocacy Alliance (Board membership at the very back page).

Up front (about page 2) it quotes a billionaire founder of private equity Blackstone Group as saying Arizonans don’t have enough “skin in the game” — and this brochure is countering that, I gather in opposition to a movement for a flat tax to replace the graduated income tax. The general tone is Annie E. Casey is going to speak up for the poor people against this billionaire’s unfair mindset, from The Blackstone Group. Take a look: Page 3 is the Blackstone quote, look at a few other pages from this “Children’s Advocacy Alliance” of Arizona.

Annie E. Casey and its Foundation is all over the family court arena (especially when it comes to foster care and promoting responsible fatherhood). I have a topic over at Scranton Political Times on some of their involvements. They are a major philanthropy.

Look at how AECF makes ITS income: — here’s its 1999 tax return

:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 16, 2013 at 3:21 pm

%d bloggers like this: